linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 003/117] Staging: hv: Add struct hv_vmbus_device_id to mod

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110825024014.GB6131@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:40:14 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc:	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
	"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"virtualization@...ts.osdl.org" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 003/117] Staging: hv: Add struct hv_vmbus_device_id to
 mod_devicetable.h

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:27:56AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> Since I don't have any (current) use for the driver_data pointer, I have gone ahead
> and cleaned up the first 74 patches without adding the driver_data. 
> With the mushing of the patches   you had proposed this is about
> a 60 patch series and addresses all the other comments you had in the first 74 patches.
> I hope I have gotten the "right" granularity now.   If it is ok with you, I could send these 
> out for your consideration.

Please do.

But if you do, do you mind if I add the driver_data pointer, so you can
blame me later if no one uses it?  :)

> The only unresolved issue in the remaining patches (75 - 117) is the reference counting
> issue we have been debating. As I noted in my earlier emails on this topic, the reference
> counting has been there for a long time and I am reluctant get rid of that code without 
> additional testing/analysis. So I want to propose the following options:
> 
> 1) Keep the existing code and I will skip the patches that cleaned up the reference counting
> 
> 2) Take the cleanup that I have implemented
> 
> In either case, I would further test and analyze this code to see if (a) the race condition that is being
> addressed is valid and (b) if there is a different mechanism that could be used to deal with it. Given
> the gaping holes in the current implementation, my personal preference would be to go with the 
> second option. Let me know what you want me to do here.  

Ok, that sounds acceptable, but don't add the lock to the hv_driver, or
is that needed right now?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/